Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Librarian

A Third level Institution

 Representatives

Represented 

 Represented

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00009171-001

19/01/2017

The Complainant was appointed to the position of Head of Library Services – replacing the post of College Librarian - at the first Third Level College (called College A) in January 2013. The salary level for the post was inferior to the previous position of College Librarian in College A.

The Trade Union, IFUT, engaged in lengthy representations and correspondence regarding the issue with the Department of X and the College.

Eventually an Independent third party Review of the position was agreed upon and a Mr. AX undertook the review.

Contemporaneously to these events College A was subsumed into University College B. The Complainant became an employee of University College B on the 1^st October 2016.

The findings of Mr. AX recommended that the Complainant be placed on the merger of the Colleges on a salary Scale that exists only in University College B. This is considerably higher than the Complainant’s salary from January 2013 to October 2016 in College A.

The Respondent has refused to pay the revised salary scale for the period in dispute – i.e. January 2013 to October 2016.

The Complainant argues that the Independent Review by Mr. AX covered the entire period – the evaluation was between her duties as Head of Library Services and that of her predecessor the College Librarian in College A. It is nonsense the argument of the Department of X to deny her the revised rate for the period in question.

In addition the Union IFUT noted that they had sought strenuously to have this case resolved via the various dispute “side deal” mechanism under the various Public Pay Agreements in the time frame involved. Unfortunately this had not proved possible largely due to the very single nature and almost unique nature of the case.

The Respondent (the Government Department) queried whether or not they were the correct Employer as the Govt Department had never actually paid any wage or salary to the Complainant. In addition the issue is one of Pay and is more appropriate to the Payment of Wages Act as opposed to the Industrial Relations Acts.

Present at the Hearing, with the Govt Department, was the Complainant’s current Employer –University College B. The claim should actually fall against College A her former employer.

Leaving the above points to one side the Govt Department contended that the job evaluation or Independent Review referred to had established that the Complainant was in a different actual job from her predecessor the College Librarian in College A. The salary level determined by the Independent Reviewer was for her new position in University College B. This was a grade unique to University College B and could never be applicable to her time from 2013 to 2016 in College A. It had no retrospective effect.

In conclusion, on both the jurisdictional grounds and the actual grounds this claim must fail.

This claim is taken under the Industrial Relations Acts. It has to be seen in this light.

From the evidence it was clear to me that the key issue had been the inability of the parties to actually engage on a satisfactory resolution to this issue. The Union made reference to unsuccessful attempts on their part to have the matter disposed off in the margins to the various Public Pay Agreements that took place during the 2013 to 2016 period.

It was clear form the evidence and the oral presentations in this Industrial Relations context that the ultimate Authority and correct Respondent in this case was the Government Department overseeing the merger between College A and University College B.

I found the arguments advanced by the Respondent in this case were, in the main, prevarications to avoid dealing with the main issue namely the rate of pay during the period from January 2013 to October 2016.

Put simply this is an Industrial Relations issue that has to be dealt with expeditiously. The Independent Report determined a salary, on the basis from the oral evidence given, it appeared of a comparison with the former College A Librarian who was in the post prior to 2013. To suggest that the pay issue, in the (2013/2016) interval for the Complainant, has not to be practically resolved between the parties is not a sustainable Industrial Relations belief.

Accordingly, in an effort to avoid further time and effort being expended on this issue, I recommend that as a pragmatic Industrial Relations compromise solution a once off standalone payment, without any precedents or relativity claims attached, of €5,000 be made as redress to the Complainant for the period from January 2013 to October 2016.

(The figure of €5,000 being approximately one year’s salary differential between the posts in College A and University B)

This payment to be in full and final settlement of the entire issue and particular to the Complainant alone. A local agreement to be speedily drafted between the parties to this effect.

I recommend that the payment to be made by University College B, the current employer but to be subject to reimbursement, as an expense incurred in the consolidation of the Colleges, from the Government Department, the ultimate Authority involved.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Summary Recommendation

Ref Section 3 above for detailed reasoning.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00009171-001

A once off Industrial Relations payment of € 5,000 in full and final settlement of all issues be made speedily to the Complainant. This payment to be without any precedents or linkages to any other matters or individuals in dispute between the parties.